Ramzy Baroud’s current article [1] on the despair of writers and the role of the intellectual in presenting information has proven to be very thought provoking personally. I would not be doing what I am doing now without his support and conviction, yet as with the writer in the article, I have often wondered why do I keep doing this when nothing seems to change. Further, am I preaching only to the converted, or is there perhaps someone out there who has read the material and actually transformed their thinking because of that?

Ramzy takes support from Noam Chomsky, who said, "Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions.” Although it is truly presumptuous of me to say, what I believe is unstated in Ramzy’s essay, after saying “the intellectual is not a cheerleader, nor a poet, and should, no matter where his sympathies lie, remain capable of dispassionately approaching the subject at hand,” is that without passion and conviction, without the emotion and the drive towards advocacy, that intellect would whither and die, it would become a text-book full of dry boring information.

Ramzy is correct, that while I am writing, I try to push aside
the motivation that brought me to the computer, and to deal with the
subject that has been the motivator very carefully, looking for
contradictions, assessing information from various sources, questioning
what I don’t understand, qualifying what does not seem to be proven or
absolute, continually reassessing my viewpoint, and hopefully, finally,
making sense.

Common sense, the sense that says that humans are
all equal in their need for food clothing and shelter, in their need
for cultural, intellectual, and emotional stimulation so that life is
not simply an exercise in survival. That level of common sense
indicates that a good portion of the world in absolute numbers is not
living a life of ‘humanity’ but is living a life of survival. Yet at
the same time, the human spirit still strives towards its refinement as
indicated by many accounts that describe the sense of humour, the
perhaps fleeting joys of daily living, and the will not to be
subjugated to another’s malevolent desires and greedy wants. Too many
in the western world, the leaders of the Euro-centric/Washington
Consensus view of things, lose account of this as they strive for the
accumulation of more and more wealth, not seeing the lack of common
sense in depriving others of a peaceful livelihood and depriving
everyone of a healthy sustainable environment in order to gratify their
own greed and power. Can the intellectual alone overcome this?

The
intellectual is not the only kind of writer, nor the only kind of
writing, and having one of those moments when I feel that I am
preaching to the already converted, other styles of writing can also be
used to reach a broader audience. Michael Moore comes to mind, and
while he is primarily a visual presenter, he has produced several books
that are intelligent if not intellectual and speak more from the common
sense perspective. Much of what he writes equates to the common sense
of the American people – health care, fair wages, good working
conditions, old age assistance and other ‘socialist’ ideas that tend to
be strongly supported away from the corporate-political-military power
centres.

There are too many writers of course to analyze here,
but a recent submission by an American writer, Eileen Fleming, in order
that I could review her books [2], made me struggle with this concept
some more.

Eileen Fleming has set up her own website [3] and
is a strong and passionate supporter of justice and equality within
Palestine and represents an element that is faith based and sees much
in the way of common sense and truth. She has been passionate enough
that she has made five trips to Palestine in order to see for herself
and to act for others to support her beliefs in justice and equality,
something that I would imagine many intellectuals have not done. While
that does not deny the validity of the intellectual as there is much
written material to work through, much video material and recorded
material to examine, many historical records and current documents that
need to be combed over, it does present a different emotional component
that would speak to a different audience than perhaps the purely
intellectual approach does.

As a Christian, relying partly on
the strength of her faith, and looking at the world from a pacifist
perspective within her interpretations of the Gospels, Eileen Fleming
can carry to some audiences as much weight or perhaps much more than I
can to mine. Her trips to Palestine are primarily to support the
Christian community, a community that in Bethlehem in particular has
diminished significantly under the Israeli occupation. If nothing else
it shows Israel to be an equal opportunity occupation force, wishing to
ethnically cleanse not only the Muslim Palestinians but all other
Palestinians as well, leaving the land available only to the Jewish
‘nation’.

From that, Ms Fleming denounces the Christian
Zionist perspective that exists within the United States, decrying
their self-fulfilling apocalyptic vision that “embraces the most
extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental
to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist
program provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the
ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it
places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history
rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.”

The
latter line is not a line that I would ever make, yet I fully support
it. North America is predominantly Christian, with estimations varying
between 10 and 40 million supporters of varying degrees for the Zionist
right (Fleming provides a high estimate of 20 million). They are the
kind of thinkers that would not likely be persuaded by my train of
thought; I’m not sure they would be persuaded by Fleming’s thoughts
either, but at least she might qualify as having more validity in
presenting the case to the majority as she is arguing from within the
religion.

She is not alone in this, as she provides quotes
from other church groups that support her perspective. The strongest
wording she provides comes from the United Methodist Church in a
conference on Unwrapping the Rapture. The members are urged to give
“prayerful consideration as to how God will actually judge us for our
silence about and complicity in the crushing of the Palestinian
people.” This quote and the others comes from the website “Challenging
Christian Zionism,” [4] a site that is not intellectual but very much
faith based and very much carrying a message of Christian love and
understanding. The common sense aspect of that is two-fold. First, the
subjugation of another people is to be denied. Second, given the
underlying premises of Christianity, it argues logically against the
rapture of the Christian Zionist apocalyptic end-times.

Common
sense treads upon the territory of morality, another province that is
not limited just to the religions of the world but enters into many
secular and scientific arguments as well (the latter especially with
the more modern sociobiological interpretations of the genetic make-up
of behaviours). There is within morality the phrase to “walk a mile in
another’s shoes”, indicating that true understanding comes from being
able to place ourselves in the other persons position and see life as
how they see it. In “The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God,”
[5] theologian David Ray Griffin sees this moral concept as the ‘ideal
observer’, an ideal “upon which theists and nontheists can agree.” In
order to do this the moral observer must “transcend the social and
historical context of their particular form of life and particular
community and adopt the perspective of all those possibly affected.”

There
is much commons sense, much morality in religion, as there is with
secularist positions as well. Neither side owns a monopoly on these
ideas. There is also much that is not common sense, that is not moral,
that only sees the ‘other’ as an outsider, without being able to walk
in their shoes, demeaning them, making them susceptible to and targets
of violence in many forms.

I have here presented a dichotomy
between the intellectual and faith based arguments while understanding
that there is a common thread between the two, that of the ‘moral
observer’. I write as best I can as a ‘moral observer’, hopefully
applying as much common sense as can be garnered from the vast amounts
of information and opinions that exist. Even as I write from an
intellectual position as posited by Ramzy Baroud and Noam Chomsky, I
need to recognize that the ‘moral observer’ is similar to the
intellectual who “no matter where his sympathies lie, remain[s] capable
of dispassionately approaching the subject at hand.” That line reflects
fully the ‘moral observer’ who is “impartially sympathetic” and
“impartially benevolent” in the description provided by the theological
view of David Ray Griffin.

I do not know if what I write has
transformed anyone’s thinking, perhaps at best giving it a nudge and
push one way or another, providing another perspective, perhaps as with
the idea of the moral observer, building a bridge between what are
commonly considered disparate thought processes, that of the intellect
and that of faith. At best, I could hope that writing provides support,
moral and intellectual, for those working towards justice and equality
for all, that I can be an advocate for truth as I perceive it.

Above
all then, I write for the truth, for it is the truth that is dangerous
to the powers that be, the truth about their secret wars and
manipulations to strengthen their own hold on power. The old maxim
holds true: the pen is mightier than the sword. That is why the U.S.
corporate-political-military structures are so efficient with their
media propaganda, keeping the people satisfied with their massively
debt ridden consumer lifestyle.

That is why it is important
for everyone to keep writing, whether it is faith based, intellect
based, a mixture of the two, or in many instances populist writing, the
common sense of the common man who wants food clothing and shelter, who
wants cultural, intellectual, and emotional stimulation so that life is
enriched beyond the basic elements of survival. Letters to the editor,
letters to representatives, letters to friends all can have the power
to transform. Writing can support the truth and argue against the lies
and manipulations of those seeking absolute power and control.

I write because I can. I write to support truth, justice, and equality against those that deny it.

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of
opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. His
interest in this topic stems originally from an environmental
perspective, which encompasses the militarization and economic
subjugation of the global community and its commodification by
corporate governance and by the American government. Miles’ work is
also presented globally through other alternative websites and news
publications.